>Gee…. the Columbian is going to blow a gasket over this one: US Senate Backs Allowing Guns In National Parks

>.
Last December, the Columbian blew a gasket over allowing guns into parks… as if they were some sort of zone where criminals (The odd murderer/robber aside) simply don’t tread, thus there is no conceivable need for non-criminals to be allowed their Second Amendment rights inside the borders of this federal property.

“… Jeers: To the Bush administration for overturning a 25-year-old rule and allowing people with concealed-weapon permits to carry loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. The Columbian opposed this effort back in May, and, more compellingly, the change was opposed earlier by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Yet this week the Interior Department announced that the new provision will take effect in January if the state in question allows concealed weapons.

“According to The Seattle Times, the change will have limited impact in Washington state. Even though the state has a concealed weapons program, the Times reported, “many visitors won’t be able to pack a gun because Washington only recognizes concealed-weapons permits from a handful of states with requirements as stringent. That’s just eight states, the closest of which is Utah.”

“So, in addition to loaded guns being taken into previously pastoral parks and crowded campgrounds, there now is this huge new bureaucratic and enforcement nightmare. We hope the next administration reverts to the old rule.”

The idiocy of such a position is obvious to someone not blinded by a bizarre, leftist, anti-gun agenda. And the verbiage?

“So, in addition to loaded guns being taken into previously pastoral parks and crowded campgrounds”

As if the view is somehow diminished by my decision to carry a concealed .45 Colt Combat Commander?

As I stated before: Idiots.

As I had written:

“In situations like these, I tend to think of those writing these editorials in terms of “what would THEY want if their life was on the line?”

If these writers were at risk in a classroom. If there was a Columbine-style shooting going on in a school where they happened to be; would they pissed that I was carrying a .357 magnum? Would they be so outraged when I pulled my weapon and ended the threat?

It’s not hard to imagine these sanctimonious hypocrites in a Virginia Tech classroom, whimpering on the floor in little liberal, whinny puddles, howling with outrage that some student or faculty member; or even worse, say, a college-student military-veteran had actually come to class with a firearm and was ready to use it to SAVE THEIR INCREASINGLY WORTHLESS LIVES had actually done so.

And so now what happens?

A completely-controlled-by-democrats Senate now BACKS allowing guns in Federal Parks AND Wildlife Refuges.

How much that must suck for the local fishwrapper.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which he said would protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The amendment allows firearms in parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.

“If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm,” Coburn said.

Twenty-seven Democrats joined 39 Republicans and one independent in supporting the amendment, which was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The amendment was approved 67-29.

This is OVERWHELMING support for a position this newspaper abhors. I guess someone is clueless… and I’ve got to wonder who.

Will this newspaper re-evaluate their position to something that actualy relates to common sense?

Nahhhh.

Senate Backs Allowing Guns In National Parks
Senate Backs Amendment To Allow Loaded Guns In National Parks
WASHINGTON, May. 12, 2009
E-Mail Story
Print Story
Sphere

(AP) The Senate on Tuesday backed an amendment that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which he said would protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The amendment allows firearms in parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.

.

“If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm,” Coburn said.

.

Twenty-seven Democrats joined 39 Republicans and one independent in supporting the amendment, which was attached to a bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies. The amendment was approved 67-29.

.

Groups supporting gun control, park rangers and retirees opposed the amendment, which they said went further than a Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges.

.

A federal judge blocked the policy in March, two months after it went into effect in the waning days of President George W. Bush’s term. The Obama administration has said it will not appeal the court ruling.

.

More:

>The Columbian blows it: Cheers & Jeers Dec. 13 – feds faulted for allowing guns into parks

>’
Like the Pravda-Izvestia it’s modeled after, the Columbian finds itself inherently incapable of viewing any issue through anything but a far left prism, where all is sweetness and light, and no one is bad (Well, except, unless, they’re Republicans. Then they’re evil incarnate.)

Last Saturday, President Bush showed a little intelligence (an asset that seems to have been strangely absent, most recently in his bizarre handling of our economic woes) by rightfully overturning a rather moronic law/rule that forbids the carrying of a concealed weapon in a national park or wildlife refuge.

Unfortunately, there are those leftists out there that seem to share a view typically ignored by our more criminal element. They seem to believe that our parks and refuges should join with the many other idiotic places that receive special dispensation by being exempt from the Second Amendment. And they’re upset, perhaps because they envision some sort of bloodbath, where people who have gone to the time, trouble and expense to secure a concealed weapons permit (CWP) will just start screaming “YAHOOOOO!” while they pull their weapon and pick off both the local wildlife and others visiting these places.

Idiots.

I am all about arming the non-criminals in our society. There are a few instances that come to mind where, among other places, an armed teacher or two in a high school could have saved lives. Or an armed student or professor could have saved lives. Or an armed hiker in a federal park or wildlife refuge could have at least saved their own life.

In situations like these, I tend to think of those writing these editorials in terms of “what would THEY want if their life was on the line?”

If these writers were at risk in a classroom. If there was a Columbine-style shooting going on in a school where they happened to be; would they pissed that I was carrying a .357 magnum? Would they be so outraged when I pulled my weapon and ended the threat?

It’s not hard to imagine these sanctimonious hypocrites in a Virginia Tech classroom, whimpering on the floor in little liberal, whinny puddles, howling with outrage that some student or faculty member; or even worse, say, a college-student military-veteran had actually come to class with a firearm and was ready to use it to SAVE THEIR INCREASINGLY WORTHLESS LIVES had actually done so.

The editorials they’d write….

“It’s all well and good that Joe Sixpack put his ass on the line to save us all by shooting a crazed, maniacal intruder who had killed 12 others… BUT HOW DARE HE BRING A FIREARM ONTO SCHOOL PROPERTY!!!!!”

One wonders. What if only one of those students had come to only one of those classrooms armed? What if it was one of these leftists moron’s kids that might be saved?

Would they stick to their idiotic and misguided “principles” (and I use the term advisedly) and believe that such a scenario where an armed student had dropped that waste of skin in his tracks was somehow “wrong,” EVEN IF IT SAVED THEIR OWN CHILD?

Of course they would.

The moronic positions by this and many other leftist rags goes directly to their inability to grasp reality, and stands as yet another major reason why print media is so rightfully circling the drain.

There is nothing sacred about the property in question. To a criminal, there’s nothing magical about a school, a park or a wildlife refuge.

The idea that those of us going to those places are absolutely secure; are absolutely without reason to be vigilant about both our personal safety and that of our families is absurdity to the level of insanity. The idea that we, as people, should be as vulnerable to those of the criminal persuasion as Bambi is only an academic exercise to the eggheads behind such pronouncements.

Because if ANY of these morons found themselves or their children on the receiving end of such criminality, and I just happened along at the right time or was otherwise prepared to defend them, they would literally BEG me to do so.

And this big, heaping pile of steaming hypocrisy goes to the heart of why I don’t spend a dime on their increasingly irrelevant newspaper.

I always believed that the Second Amendment even applied to our parks and refuges. I’m pretty sure that any criminals carrying weapons into our “parks and refuges” feel that way. Imagine… no concern about the criminals…. just concern about those of us following the law, getting criminal background checks, and getting concealed weapon permits. And we all know that CWP holders are RAMPANT criminals. CWP holders rape, kill, pillage and burn everywhere we go!

“Rights” are not “suggestions.” I believe this particular “jeer” represents another in the long and distinguished list of reasons why this newspaper is going bankrupt: an inability to apply the law evenly and equally combined with an inability to grasp reality.

Editorials
Email Print

Cheers & Jeers Dec. 13
Local scientist applauded for big grant; feds faulted for allowing guns into parks

Saturday, December 13 1:00 a.m.

“… Jeers: To the Bush administration for overturning a 25-year-old rule and allowing people with concealed-weapon permits to carry loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. The Columbian opposed this effort back in May, and, more compellingly, the change was opposed earlier by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Yet this week the Interior Department announced that the new provision will take effect in January if the state in question allows concealed weapons.

“According to The Seattle Times, the change will have limited impact in Washington state. Even though the state has a concealed weapons program, the Times reported, “many visitors won’t be able to pack a gun because Washington only recognizes concealed-weapons permits from a handful of states with requirements as stringent. That’s just eight states, the closest of which is Utah.”

“So, in addition to loaded guns being taken into previously pastoral parks and crowded campgrounds, there now is this huge new bureaucratic and enforcement nightmare. We hope the next administration reverts to the old rule.”

.